Beyond The Sociology of Religion?

Abstract

ation of latter. Fruitful aspects of neofunctionalism and new linkages between sociology of religion and other foci are discussed. Starting loosely from Richard Fenn's (1982) diagnosis of an epistemological in sociology of religion and James Beckford's argument (in this issue) that problematic status of contemporary sociology of religion stems from pattern of its intellectual and social institutionalization, I propose to argue here that while both of these claims have their merits they need, at very least, to be supplemented by discussion of kinds of problem which sociologists of religion study, relationships between religion and other aspects and spheres of sociocultural life, and present condition of sociology itself. I will be talking in form of adding to theses of Fenn and Beckford, although there are some aspects of their deliberations about which I have reservations. While regarding Fenn's attempt to display what might be called deep structureor, in slightly different vein, synthetic a priori-of modern sociology of religion as very noteworthy, I consider his claim that present disarray in analysis of religion originated in collapse of a consensus regarding an intrinsically problematic functionalism to be misleading. There seems to run through Fenn's reading of sociology of religion before the present crisis a conception of functionalism as premised on notions of value consensus (of which religious belief and religiously-centered morality are central components) and value-neutrality on part of analyst. Present interpretations of odyssey of functionalism in sociology do not, however, indicate that such are distinguishing or intrinsic features of that style of analysis. Indeed, I would argue that each of four styles of analysis which Fenn now envisages (systemic-priestly; critical-prophetic; systemicprophetic; and critical-priestly) are compatible with a functionalist orientation; even though empirically-but not logically-the first has been most closely identified with it. Thus insofar as we may or should speak of a present I consider issue of functionalism as Fenn invokes it to be misleading, mainly because he is concerned with a level of analysis which is separable from kinds of issue which have and continue to be raised with respect to merits of functionalism. Beckford helps to clarify problem of functionalist past by, indeed, denying its strength and also, more important, pointing out that it was so-called normative functionalism which was primarily responsible for assimilation of religion into conception of a central value system-thus rendering religion as lacking in distinctiveness. However, even though there is merit to argument that a diffuse, normative functionalism served as a kind of internal sacred canopy as far as American sociology of religion